[21] Applying that test to this case, leads to these conclusions. In this case, the evidence as found by the trial judge supported the inference that the Accused possessed both items as weapons. Again, on the evidence found by the trial judge, the possibility that the items were possessed for a non-violent use was not reasonable. Therefore, the trial judge was right to conclude that the items were weapons. Whether the Accused actually intended to use the items as weapons and if so when, becomes irrelevant.

[55] In my opinion, it comes down to a matter of fairness. If the accused gave up something and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence he otherwise may not get, then it may be argued that it is appropriate to allow him to withdraw his plea. If as mentioned earlier, the crown case had some weaknesses, or if the accused gave up arguably valid Charter arguments which could have brought into question the crown’s prospects of conviction, then fairness would dictate the accused be restored to his previous position and allow him to argue these issues.

[35] In my view, to the extent that denunciation and general deterrence is necessary to be addressed in this sentencing, that need has been satisfied by the damage the Accused has already suffered to his reputation, and will continue to suffer, as a result of “wanted posters” being circulated and remaining on social media. These postings will endure and remain on the internet for the foreseeable future for the world to see and may well have a more general deterrent effect than a conditional sentence order.